131–140 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. It was quite clear from the beginning this is more about Epic's bottom line than the interest of users or developers.
I disagree. We know an open market lowers prices for consumers.
As I saw it, Epic's initial actions here were basically over the percentage of the pie they get to take, not reducing the size of the pie.
From the court ruling:
> At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons:
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property.
> Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission
> Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cook said that Apple was not thinking about money at all, and Fortnite's revenue was not a consideration. That's a bald faced lie. Of course it is about the money.
Apple is giving up a lot of money, likely hundreds of millions, by not letting Fortnite back in. You could argue that in the long term Apple might be calculating that the fear effect on other companies might pay that back, but that's highly arguable. It's unarguable they are giving up a serious amount of reliable income to make this point.
Epic was ordered to pay $6mm from the case that they lost which was sales from pre-installed apps over around a 3 month period [1]
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/13/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million/Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple made not just a "promise", they made an offer, the judge then asked if Epic wanted it, Epic said no. Now Epic is changing their mind now that the judge ruled they did breach the contract, what they were expecting?
Yep. I’m confused. Do people think that Epic won the court case, and are therefore in some position to make demands? The court ruled in favor of Apple on 9 of 10 issues. Epic has proven itself to be a bad faith actor; recall, Epic could have remained in compliance and then sued for the right they just gained, and then implemented it. But they decided to purposefully break the rules they originally agreed to. This is…
I've never been a big Apple fan - and I speak up about it on various forums - up until about two years ago, no one really cared.
These last two years... The Anti-Apple sentiment is hitting HARD. Frankly - It was always an abusive company ("my way or the high way" seems like it could be their company motto), but now the products just aren't that good, and it shows.
Maybe the M1 devices will buy them some time, lord knows they need it after the cluster fuck of a computer that is the latest 16 macbook pro (work issued, it's the worst laptop I've used in the last 12 years).
But the phones are WAY too expensive for what you get - the UI is dissolving into a mess, the laptops are losing all the power user features that got folks interested in the first case, and the privacy-centric "User first" approach they market so hard is visibly turning into a pretty clear charade.
My prediction - This is going to be a pyrrhic victory. They're going to fight tooth and nail to hang onto this revenue stream (which is clearly simple rent-seeking behavior), and it's going to taint developer and user opinion across their main market. I personally went from "neutral/negative" on Apple to "Will not touch with a 20' pole - will not do business with or develop for"
Even at work - We have a large group of developers now asking to be issued something other than a macbook. I find that pretty damn telling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And thank "God" for people like him[1]. Life is unbearable under Tim Cook's "vision", the greed, arrogance and pettiness is at an all-time high, and it's not like it was low before.. [1] Also, nothing is black and white, of course Tim/Epic were looking to get more money from what their customers paid.
My life under Tim Cook's "vision" is pretty sweet when it comes to electronic devices. With a tap of a button I fill my house with lossless quality of music that is playing on astonishingly capable speakers. Those speakers also answer my questions and run automations on my phone which I can create in a very nice and user-friendly interface. I'm currently watching an episode of a TV Series that is playing from my NAS…
This sounds like the best solution by far. Nothing changes for Apple walled garden users and happy Google Play users. The rest of us get better choices.
That makes sense. Why would you do business ever again with someone who intentionally breached a contract, publicly smeared you with a calculated negative PR campaign and then sued you? After all this you offer them to allow Fortnite back if they reverse what they've done that breached the contract. Instead, they: - Reject the offer - Carry on smearing you - Lose the court case - Sweeney says they wouldn’t release iO…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion. Why do you think this is plain wrong?
As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/g...
That said, Epic could always try to get a further injunction on this, and I don't really see an upside for Apple from banning further accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Epic promises they will comply Did i miss something where they actually said that? My understanding is that in the past Sweeney's statements have consistently said they will not exclusively offer Apple's IAP which indicates they promise to not comply with the rules.
>>> Epic promises they will comply >Did i miss something where they actually said that? In this thread's Fireball blogpost is a link to Tim Sweeney's tweet of an email screenshot to Apple's Phil Schiller stating his "promise": >Sep 16, 2021 at 5:01 PM; Subject: Fortnite and the App Store; To: Phil Schiller >[..] Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and wherever we release products on Apple…
Their promises are worth less than dogshit. Apple apparently isn’t in the market for dogshit.